(12-02-2014 07:57 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote: In the video they say he seems to know when his mother is holding him verses someone else. Do you think this is just wishful thinking?

That effect could be achieved with just classical conditioning--in which case he couldn't be said to really "know" his mother's embrace--but even that requires a cerebellum which he presumably lacks.[1][2] He may have a small piece of the cerebellum attached to his brainstem and that may be permitting him to develop conditioned responses.

But in a best-case scenario, even if he had a complete cerebellum and brainstem his favourable response to his mother would be nothing more than a mechanical response to the stimulus of his mother's voice and appearance. There is no sense in which he "knows" it is his mother and he doesn't experience emotions so he has no attachment to his mother.

(12-02-2014 09:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: A brain stem is not "half a brain". It's NO brain. Neuroscience knows where cognition takes place and it's NOT in the brainstem. They may have observed responses to stimuli. That does not amount to cognition. Unicellular organisms respond to stimuli. Brain functions are observed IN ACTION in MRI's and PET scans. NO "cognition" goes on in the brain stem. Period. NO Neuroscientist postulates that. You appear to have no training in the field.

I didn't say I had any "training in the field."

Cognition is not the same as sentience. Response to stimuli is a more refined kind of response to stimuli. A computer can respond to stimuli but not in a subjective manner, for instance, it only does what it has been programmed to do.

According to you then, "sentience" is present in caterpillars, etc.
So what. ANYTHING that can "experience" sensation is "sentient" ? I think not.
"Response to stimuli is a more is a more refine kind of response to stimuli".
Say what ? Tautology much ?

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(12-02-2014 07:57 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote: In the video they say he seems to know when his mother is holding him verses someone else. Do you think this is just wishful thinking?

That effect could be achieved with just classical conditioning--in which case he couldn't be said to really "know" his mother's embrace--but even that requires a cerebellum which he presumably lacks.[1][2] He may have a small piece of the cerebellum attached to his brainstem and that may be permitting him to develop conditioned responses.

But in a best-case scenario, even if he had a complete cerebellum and brainstem his favourable response to his mother would be nothing more than a mechanical response to the stimulus of his mother's voice and appearance. There is no sense in which he "knows" it is his mother and he doesn't experience emotions so he has no attachment to his mother.

Well, newborn babies will favor their mothers. They don't know that she's their mother and they don't have any emotional attachment either. A new born baby doesn't love his mother he is just comfortable with her because she looks, smells, sounds, and feels familiar. I guess I was just wondering if this boy can recognize something about his mother that makes him prefer her. Is it possible that he has a little bit more brain than they think he does? Is it 100% impossible for a brain develope when it shouldn't?

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.

(12-02-2014 08:45 PM)Chippy Wrote: That effect could be achieved with just classical conditioning--in which case he couldn't be said to really "know" his mother's embrace--but even that requires a cerebellum which he presumably lacks.[1][2] He may have a small piece of the cerebellum attached to his brainstem and that may be permitting him to develop conditioned responses.

But in a best-case scenario, even if he had a complete cerebellum and brainstem his favourable response to his mother would be nothing more than a mechanical response to the stimulus of his mother's voice and appearance. There is no sense in which he "knows" it is his mother and he doesn't experience emotions so he has no attachment to his mother.

Well, newborn babies will favor their mothers. They don't know that she's their mother and they don't have any emotional attachment either. A new born baby doesn't love his mother he is just comfortable with her because she looks, smells, sounds, and feels familiar. I guess I was just wondering if this boy can recognize something about his mother that makes him prefer her. Is it possible that he has a little bit more brain than they think he does? Is it 100% impossible for a brain develope when it shouldn't?

No, it's not possible. It's sad for him, for his mother and everyone.

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

(12-02-2014 09:57 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote: Well, newborn babies will favor their mothers. They don't know that she's their mother and they don't have any emotional attachment either. A new born baby doesn't love his mother he is just comfortable with her because she looks, smells, sounds, and feels familiar. I guess I was just wondering if this boy can recognize something about his mother that makes him prefer her. Is it possible that he has a little bit more brain than they think he does? Is it 100% impossible for a brain develope when it shouldn't?

No, it's not possible. It's sad for him, for his mother and everyone.

It is very sad. I was just curious if there was any possible truth to him recognizing his mother or if it was just wishful thinking.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.

(12-02-2014 09:57 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote: Well, newborn babies will favor their mothers. They don't know that she's their mother and they don't have any emotional attachment either.

No, that is entirely wrong. Attachment theory is a very well-researched area in developmental psychology. All primates--including humans--exhibit an emotional attachment to whatever it is that regularly embraces them in the first 6-months of their life. It is a phylogenetic behaviour and in most cases it is satisfied by the mother, but as Harlow demonstrated with rhesus monkeys even a doll will serve that role. And this attachment is almost entirely emotionally based.

Quote: A new born baby doesn't love his mother he is just comfortable with her because she looks, smells, sounds, and feels familiar.

No that is false and has been demonstrated to be false with non-human primates--our closest relatives. An infant monkey will form an attachment even with a doll.

"Love" is an ambigious term but attachment is affective, i.e. it is based in emotion and the general view is that the infant does experience "love" for whatever (s)he has become attached to. Attachment has nothing to do with familiarity--the idea that the infant is comfortable with the mother because "she looks, smells, sounds, and feels familiar" is an old wives tale. A foetus is unable to see or smell and even if it can hear everything will be muffled and garbled.

An infant with a normal brain is pre-programmed to attach and the tie is motivated and reinforced by positive emotions that the infant feels when (s)he is physically close to whatever it has attached to, as well as by unpleasant emotions that the infant feels upon separation from whatever it has attached to.

(12-02-2014 03:13 PM)Free Thought Wrote: In order to answer that one must first define the word "person" to establish if it meets the definition; if something cannot be defined as a particular something, it is clearly not that something.

What is in question is what it means to be a person, i.e. to possses personhood; so looking up the word in the dictionary doesn't help because the vernacular definition is what is in question.

That's not what I read from the question, but we'll go with that.

Preferably without a kilometer thick layering of philosobull, how do you think the question is answered?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.